低放射性廢棄物的最終處置是我國目前面臨的棘手公共問題之一，縱使政府於2006年制定出「低放射性廢棄物最終處置設施場址設置條例」作為選址依據，但至今選址業務推動仍然窒礙難行。為解構此政策難題，本研究共提出三個研究問題：一、選址草案在立法過程中有什麼爭議？最終選址條例運用哪些政策工具處理低放核廢問題？二、選址條例在執行過程中民眾如何看待選址所遇到的難題？又提出什麼樣的建議方案？三、綜合上述多元利害關係人對於選址條例的意見陳述，顯現出我國的政策過程存在哪些侷限？分析過程中，研究者以Elmore所提的四種政策工具為分析架構，探究此四種工具在選址條例中之運用情形與爭議。研究結果發現，最初行政政院版選址草案僅運用到強制規範、誘因、能力建立此三種政策工具，最後立委堅持新添入具有系統改變工具概念的地方性公投機制。除此之外，草案於立法審查過程中，另三種工具也發生爭議討論，強制規範概念的選址準則便被批評行政裁量範圍過大、忽略台灣獨特脈絡、缺乏課責機制。誘因概念的回饋金被詬病規劃過於模糊粗糙。能力建立概念的傳遞資訊與回應民意部分，則是在立委要求下明訂對全國民眾公佈資訊與回應提問的方法。將此立法審查爭議對照於民眾所提之意見，發現部分民眾意見其實立委也曾提出要求討論，可惜當時並未被採納，甚至是忽略。由此顯現我國目前代議政治之缺失，即民意代表並無法在政策制定過程全然地反應民意與調和真實社會的多元價值觀，導致所制定之政策與現實社會脫節，無能順利執行。為解決選址爭議，研究者彙整民眾意見提出之建議如下：坦誠公佈處置場與回饋金的負面影響資訊、藉由公正第三方舉辦雙向溝通的討論會、賦予民間組織監督處置場的權力、交代清楚選址條例與原住民基本的衝突關係等，以消弭當地居民的鄰避情結，促進選址政策執行。另外，為彌補現今代議政治之缺失，建議往後於選址政策的修訂或決策過程中，能援引更多元且富創新的途徑獲取廣泛利害關係人之意見，使得選址過程能更臻民主精神，而選址結果也更能被民眾所接受。

面對高度科技化、工業化及專業化的社會，風險溝通已是政府面對環境爭議時難以規避的課題。回顧台灣近年來各項環境政策所遭遇的激烈抗爭，顯現政府風險溝通的不足。近年來興起的審議式民主，強調在理性與互惠的前提下，讓公民針對議題發表不同意見，成為政府替代傳統風險溝通的另一選項。尤其對於亟需完善風險溝通的高科技議題-「核廢料處置」而言，審議式民主似乎為其帶來契機。本研究透過分析「核廢何從電視公民討論會」審議活動過程政府與民眾的風險溝通關係，以及會議參與者的深度訪談資料，探討審議式會議如何落實風險溝通理念，藉此瞭解並反思審議式民主在台灣的實踐及其能否成為有效的風險溝通機制。 研究發現，在理論層面，審議式民主與風險溝通理論有許多相通之處；而在實踐層面，審議式民主得以落實風險溝通四項核心要素：「雙向互動」、「資訊公開、即時及更新」、「轉譯為常民語言」及「利害關係人參與」；除此之外，與會者及相關人員亦受到審議機制正向的影響；但在此會議中民眾與政府間信任關係的改善程度有限。本研究建議政府未來進行風險溝通時，應健全溝通管道、有效連結「會議結論」與「政策制定」、整合資訊公開管道並縮短數位落差、及處理與核能政策連動問題，方能有助於低放射性廢棄物的風險溝通。 / Risk communication is an unavoidable task when the government faces a highly industrialized and professionalized society. In the past years, environmental policies the government proposed and the protests these policies triggered show the deficiency of the government on risk communication. Recently, the rising deliberative democracy that emphasizes citizen dialogue on the basis of equality, rationality and reciprocity, could become an alternative to traditional risk communication for the government. Especially for the high-tech issue--disposal of nuclear waste-- which is desperate for comprehensive risk communication, deliberative democracy seems to bring the window of opportunity. Through examining the case of “Where Would the Nuclear Waste Go?” TV forum, this study explores risk communication between the government and citizens, and discusses how deliberative forum realizes the idea of risk communication in practice and delivers risk knowledge. Furthermore, this study rethinks the practice of deliberative democracy in Taiwan and accesses whether it could be an effective risk communication mechanism. This study discovers that there is no contradiction between the practice of deliberative forum and the theory of risk communication. Deliberative democracy facilitates four core elements of risk communication: “two-way communication,” “information disclosure, in time and update,” “transfer into the language of ordinary people” and “the participation of stakeholders.” In addition, the participants and staffs were empowered positively by the deliberative mechanism. However, the improvement of trust between the government and citizens is very limited. This study suggests that when conducting risk communication for the low-level radioactive waste issue, the government should enhance risk communication channels, link the conclusions of citizen forums to policy making, integrate various information disclosure mechanisms, bridge the digital divide, and deal with the problem related to the nuclear energy policy.

本論文以台灣「低放選址政策」的信任問題為主題，採用文獻研究、調查訪談、焦點座談、問卷調查等多元研究方法，一方面參照並補充TCC模型作為理論架構，分析「信任」如何分別透過其知識與非知識屬性，影響台東與金門兩縣民眾的最終處置場設施接受度，藉以充實對公共政策中不行動面向之理解，並增加對非科學理性因素之重視。另方面，則綜合實證分析結果，並參酌近期國/內外選址的風險溝通經驗，探討「低放選址政策」如何納入重建信任的風險溝通模式，以協調科學與民主、專家與民眾在決策過程中的關係。研究結果指出，「低放選址政策」的信任問題，彰顯了過去人們用以確保政府機關不負所託的科學理性及專家決策模式，在現代風險社會中，不再足以讓民眾繼續作出授予信任的判斷，並在風險議題中合作。有鑑於在信任的分類與運作模式中，受價值相似性啟發的信任，主導了對科學證據與信心的詮釋。因此，對風險議題進行社會選擇的決策模式，必須能夠重塑集體的價值相似性，形成新的信任穩定機制。本論文乃建議一個重視「代表性、共同框架、決策影響力」的參與式對話平台，將可藉由政策審議架構，尋求在共享價值下，可被普遍接受的正義原則及解決之道，以提升「低放選址政策」的接受度與正當性。 / In this study, the author focused on the trust problems related to the “low radioactive waste disposal site selection” topic and adopted the literature review, survey interview, focus group, and questionnaire survey study methods. One of the objectives was to reference and supplement the TCC model as the theoretical framework to analyze how “trust” as well as its knowledge and non-knowledge attributes can affect acceptance for the final disposal site by the people of Taitung and Kinmen in order to enrich our understanding of the inaction in public policies and strengthen the emphasis on non-scientific rationality factors. The other objective was to incorporate the analysis and empirical results, reference the recent domestic/foreign disposal site selection risk communication experiences, and explore how to incorporate a trust rebuilding risk-communication method into the low radioactive waste disposal site selection, in order to coordinate the relationships between science and democracy as well as the experts and citizens throughout the policy-making process. The trust problems related to low radioactive waste disposal site selection discussed in this study highlight the fact that the scientific rationality and expert policy-making mode relied upon by the government agencies are no longer sufficient for the people to trust the government’s judgments or cooperate in the risk topics during the modern risk society. In terms of TCC model, trust inspired by value similarities drives the interpretation of scientific evidence and confidence. Therefore, the policy-making process that enable to risk-topic related social choice must be able to reshape the shared value and form a new trust stabilization mechanism. In this study, the author proposed a participative discourse platform that emphasizes on “representation, collaborative framing, and decision impacts” may adopt the framework for policy deliberation in search of shared values, as well as generally accepted justice principles and solutions, in order to enhance the acceptance and legitimacy for the low radioactive waste disposal site selection.